NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Saturday, April 8, 2017

What Else - continued

Any more else? So far no one has even attempted to respond to any of my responses to the accusations leveled at Patsy. You guys chicken or what?

253 comments:

"Of course, if I had wanted to avoid the touchy issue of false memory, and make it easier on myself, I could have claimed that an innocent Patsy eventually awoke to the truth that her husband had killed her daughter, but nevertheless decided to stick by him, as he was her sole support, both financially and legally. That would make it easier to explain Patsy's deceptive story, but given everything we know about her and her relation with her daughter, I refuse to accept it. If she had ever learned the truth about John's involvement I feel sure she would have left him, and reported him to the authorities."

Well...instead, I believe that this is true:

An innocent Patsy eventually awoke to the truth that her husband had killed her daughter, but nevertheless decided to stick by him, because she knew about the chronic abuse. And she knew she would end up in jail also. That would make it easier to explain Patsy's deceptive story.She could have been oblivious of what was going on during her time under cancer treatment but I'm sure that when she was in remission and went back to normal life so to speak she got to know about it. And that is the reason both were indicted. I don't think she was ever gaslit or confused. I believe she knew about the chronic abuse. If she had the relationship with her daughter as you describe it, there's no way she wouldn't know.I'm a mother of 2 girls and know from experience that a mother knows instinctively.

"Any more else"?Is that correct grammar, Doc? Shouldn't that be "Anything else"? I know you're a stickler for the usage of proper grammar..... ;)

Marcela, I used to believe Patsy went to her grave completely ignorant of John's abuse of JB, but I'm beginning to have a few doubts. If it's so evident to us, who are privy to only a fraction of the evidence she was aware of, she most likely suspected something. I'm sure she didn't want to accept it, and pushed the thought far from her mind, but I think deep down she had to have known. Linda Arndt's words regarding the conversation she had with Patsy on her death bed would support this: she said PR was "imprisoned by secrets". However, if Linda Arndt's other statement is true, that, "One of the things she demanded of me, she looked me in the eye and grabbed my hand and said, 'Promise me, promise me you will stay on this case and you will find out who did this to JonBenet", that would indicate, in no uncertain terms, that she left this world still firmly believing an intruder killed her daughter.

And yes, Ms. D, thanks for reminding us of that deathbed request. I believe Arndt, and I believe Patsy. She was definitely in the dark. If she had known the truth I feel sure she would, at the very least, have left him, and most likely reported him soon after.

If we look carefully at what she actually said regarding the broken window it becomes clear that it could have been neither the truth nor a lie. For reasons I need not repeat here. And it's not only the bit about Linda, but also her confusion regarding the entire episode. If the two of them had agreed on a lie for her to tell, it would have been more accurate, less confused and would certainly NOT have included Linda.

While "gaslighting" might sound very esoteric and complicated, the implanting of a false memory could have been extremely straightforward, especially given Patsy's complete dependence on John at this time and her awareness that he "could not have written the ransom note," which would have stopped any latent suspicions in their tracks.

"Do you remember when I broke into the house last summer and you cleaned up all the glass?"

"No, not really."

"Oh my God, I can't believe you can't remember that. Though, after all the meds you've been taking, it doesn't surprise me. But I really need you to remember this, because otherwise no one's going to believe me and they'll think we broke that window on the night of the crime to stage a breakin."

"Well, that's ridiculous, we did no such thing."

"Then try to remember. Close your eyes and picture yourself down in the basement cleaning up that glass. You were definitely there, I remember it clearly."

And so on, working on her like that for days or weeks at a time until she "admits" that "yes, now I remember."

If this seems far fetched to you, think back to the Amanda Knox case, where after her interrogators worked on her for only a few hours, she "remembered" being at the murder scene with her boss and practically confessed to a murder she did not commit. And of course the Knox case is only one in a long series of "false confessions," where suspects have been persuaded to recall events that never took place, even when it meant confessing to a horrible crime they had nothing to do with.

No, the idea of gaslighting has never seemed "far fetched" to me, Doc. I know from personal experience it can occur, and I am by no means a weak minded woman who is easily manipulated......nevertheless, I was a victim of it once, many years ago, over a long period of time. Sometimes, under certain circumstances, one might be susceptible to it, even if they never have been before in their life, which is the case with Patsy, I believe. John knew she was vulnerable after JB's death, and he used her grief to his advantage.

My only reason for digging into the whole "gaslighting" issue was to find a way around it so as to convince CC that arresting John would be not only worth the risk but the right thing to do. As you've warned against doing so many times, it's a mistake to go searching for evidence that isn't there; all you end up doing is going crazy and resorting to what other theories rely on---speculation and "creating" facts to fit your theory.

Your example above provides an Ocaam razors account of how "gaslighting" can be executed with less effort than what's typically expected.

In light of this, I do believe you have put the onus back on those JDIers needing to see more evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, before asserting that arresting John is the right, albeit risky thing, for the D.A to do soon if not immediately.

Doc: My second comment to Miss Marple was a bit over the top, but it's frustrating to hear your theory likened to a PDI theory based on psychbabble speculation. And while Marple earlier called your theory "implausible", you'll notice how it now has equal stance with two other blogsites listed on the front page of her updated Encyclopedia.

Thanks, Mike. Your mention, and defense, of my theory, book and blog on the psychiatrist's website is very welcome.

Although Ms. Marple doesn't buy my theory and stubbornly insists, against all odds, that JBR was assaulted by an intruder, I have great respect for her and see her website as an extremely useful resource. Thanks for pointing me to her update. What she's written about my take on the case strikes me as both remarkably thorough and accurate. If this update was due to your prodding, then thanks again.

DocG,I appreciate your comments about the Case Encyclopedia. I think you "get" what I'm doing even if we don't see eye-to-eye on what conclusions to draw from the available evidence.

CC,The modifications I made were in response to your demand (I don't think that's too strong a word) that I remove all direct quotes from you. As I explained to you (privately), my quoting you verbatim is no different than I've done with other posters (including DocG) and no one in the decade I've worked on the Case Encyclopedia has ever taken umbrage at what in the academic community would quite reasonable view as "fair use." I didn't steal your words and post them as my own. Instead, in each instance I took care to explain whom I was quoting and then gave readers a link back to the original quote so they could reassure themselves I was quoting you fairly and not cherry-picking quotes to make it appear you were arguing for a position you didn't believe. Indeed, that's precisely why I quoted you more extensively than I normally would, to avoid any concerns that my own personal paraphrase of what you believe might be construed as misleading or downright false.

In that context, I continue to be a little baffled by your apparent hostility. To my knowledge, I haven't disparaged or ridiculed your views even though it's pretty obvious I don't buy them hook, line and sinker.

Yes, Marcela. Linda Arndt clearly believed John Ramsey killed JonBenet. After her discussion with Patsy, I have no idea whether she changed her stance or not.....she was going to write a book, I wonder what happened to that? Perhaps she named John as JB's killer and was threatened with a lawsuit?

Thank you, Ms D for your response...That book was never published as far as I understand. I don't lose hope that somebody with true information will come forward after JR's passing. I don't think that she (LA) ever changed her mind about his responsibility and connected with Patsy on those final days in hopes she would hear some kind of confession. Like Doc, I believe LA, I don't believe Patsy, though. Patsy lied many times. Some lies are silly and can be easily explained but others are not so much. She was lucky LE didn't do their job when interviewing her. I think she knew about the chronic abuse and that she would be found liable for not protecting JBR from an abusive father. She lied to distance herself from the deed. And that is why she never left him or reported. Because if he was the abuser, she was the person to protect the child and she failed to do so. But it's just my opinion, the way I see this case. A very complex one, indeed. An after reading this blog consistently for over 6 months I don't think I can firmly say JDI alone any more. Or Patsy was in the dark at the time of the interviews. Way too many lies, don't recalls and confusion.Doc thinks there is only one way out of this maze and I agree with him if you think logically. But logic and human nature don't always come hand in hand.

CC,I'm very sorry the Case Encyclopedia isn't perfect. Part of my motivation in inviting others to help is because a) I'm not perfect; b) I don't know every pertinent detail; and c) even if I knew everything, that's no guarantee I wouldn't present it in a biased way even if that were not my intent.

I've never hid the fact that I "lean IDI." In my view, that's where the weight of the evidence lies, but I well recognize that someone who makes different assumptions about human behavior and/or weigh the importance of certainly inherently uncertain bits of evidence, such as the DNA or broken basement window, might not reach different conclusions.

If I had an "agenda" then it would be trivially ease to suppress all the "inconvenient facts" regarding IDI. Instead, I've tried to organize the material into "evidence for" and "evidence against" and let readers draw their own conclusions. In that regard, I think I've done a reasonably balanced job of presenting DocG's theory even if I don't subscribe to it. DocG in the past has been complimentary about the Case Encyclopedia as I presume he recognizes I'm trying to make a good faith effort at presenting the theories as opposed to pre-emptively trashing them and/or presenting the least convincing version of them.

The point being my motivation in creating the Encyclopedia was never to convince the world an intruder did it, but instead try and make sense of the morass of conflicting evidence and opinions in this case and see what conclusions I myself could draw. My memory's not great and it's way easier to keep track of everything in a wiki than try and keep track of a bazillion threads/facts/opinions across multiple blogs, news sites or discussion forums.

I live in academia where the ideal is respectful debate and disagreement. My goal for the Case Encyclopedia would be the present the best possible version of each of the various theories, meaning bringing forward the best possible arguments both for and against. Then the discussion boards can "have at it" in terms of how to weigh/interpret the evidence. In a perfect world, such discussion can change minds, as it might lead people to better see the weakness in their own arguments and/or the unconscious biases that might have led them to interpret evidence in a particular way instead of using the impartial innocent-until-proven guilty mindset of the ideal juror etc.

The point being, I see room for a Case Encyclopedia where "we" (not just me) assemble all the evidence and try as much as possible to "agree on the facts" (or at least clarify where we disagree etc.) and room for the discussion boards. But for whatever reason, all the posters I've ever invited to be contributors have preferred instead to solely spending their time posting on discussion boards/blogs than helping out with helping improve what I've always viewed as a useful shared resource designed to help all concerned in arguing for their pet theories. It saddens me that you too evidently have adopted this same posture since your legal knowledge (which I lack) would have made you a particularly useful contributor etc.

Thanks, Ms. M. I agree. CC, I sincerely hope you'll accept Ms. Marple's offer, as I think you'd be a great addition to her site. I don't know enough about the law to form a judgement regarding the legality of her use of other people's words. But her practice is not at all unusual, and I've done the same thing myself several times. Ethically I see no problem so long as one places all quotations in quotes and properly attributes the source.

"I see room for a Case Encyclopedia where "we" (not just me) assemble all the evidence and try as much as possible to "agree on the facts" (or at least clarify where we disagree etc.) and room for the discussion boards."

Miss Marple: From the BDI Theory section of your encyclopedia you wrote:

Instead, BDI theorists argue that the Grand Jury solved the case in 1999 when it determined that Burke (too young to be accused of even manslaughter) accidentally killed his sister, perhaps with the involvement of Doug Stine and possibly one older perp.

The GJ did not determine Burke "accidentally killed his sister". It's fine to present incriminatory and exculpatory evidence pertaining to the various theories in this case, but the evidence should be accurate. Had you written the following, all would be fine:

... BDI theorists claim that the Grand Jury solved the case in 1999 by concluding Burke (too young to be accused of even manslaughter) accidentally killed his sister...

Claims are not assertions; the former don't proof sources, the latter do. If you or some BDI theorist are privy to undisclosed pages of the GJ transcript, you should share them with us. Otherwise, I recommend you re-word your statement.

Mike G,Not trying to be argumentative. I literally don't see your point. When I say "BDI theorists argue that" everything that follows in that sentence is a claim made by BDI theorists (as opposed to my "asserting" that any of it is true).

From where I sit "BDI theorists argue that" and your preferred construction "BDI theorists claim that" are identical in meaning.

If I'd instead said "because the GJ determined Burke "accidentally killed his sister" BDI theorists argue blah, blah, blah, then I would quite obviously guilty of making an assertion that neither I nor any BDI theorist not privy to GJ proceedings could know is true.

What am I missing?

I have altered the offending sentence as you recommend because it is a more efficient way of saying what I intended. However, in my view, the meaning of the two sentences is the same. But if you don't want to waste time educating me on a point I am obviously not getting, I understand.

Actually, what I am aware of is that "Short quotations will usually be fair use, not copyright infringement. The Copyright Act says that "fair use...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." [see Intellectual Property section of EFF.org's site].

I removed the quotes as a courtesy to a poster who demanded I do so (I myself would have preferred and been equally responsive to a more polite and civilly-delivered request), not because I, in any way, thought I was in legal jeopardy by not doing so.

As DocG suggested, what he and I both have done regarding direct quotes is pretty common. But some posters are more thin-skinned than others. C'est la vie.

Here's what you characterize as "perfectly polite:" "You do not have my permission to quote me, as you have done within the last hour, in the JDI section of your "Case Encyclopedia". Further, you do not have my permission to quote me again, anywhere on your blog.

Remove it immediately."

There's a difference between a demand and a request. Miss Manners likely would have advised using "please" in front of "remove" or even "I would appreciate your removing it at your earliest convenience" to soften the tone.

But as anyone reading the posts on this thread can see, you have a penchant for being brusque, dismissive and even demeaning when the mood strikes--all qualities that perhaps serve you well in your law practice, but that no one would would mistake for being polite.

On a related point, it's generally considered quite rude to share private communications on a public board--a norm one would think a lawyer used to safeguarding client confidential information might be particularly sensitive to avoid violating. But since you have felt quite free to uncivilly ignore that standard of conduct WRT to my invitation to help edit the Case Encyclopedia, I feel perfectly justified in reciprocating in kind without your permission. Especially since seeing what you actually said versus your self-serving characterization of it is the only way for other readers to judge for themselves how honest your characterization was.

In accordance with your preferences, all references and links to "poster CC" have been deleted. I certainly would not want to contribute to besmirching your stellar reputation...

Miss Marple, I just want to thank you for the encyclopedia. It has been invaluable to me in sifting through the various claims about the evidence and determining what the evidence actually is and perhaps more importantly, what the evidence is *not*.

Doc, just below is your response (April 2nd, 10:24PM) to my questioning your inference that both parents, not just John, would have known about the head blow if committed by Burke, and thus the BDI theory, and CBS theorem, cannot hold up because the parents would have called an ambulance to save their daughter (which is of course true if BOTH parents were aware of the head blow at the time it happened):

"My inference is based on the extreme unlikelihood that BOTH parents would not have become aware of what had happened. If you're trying to imagine a scenario in which Burke struck her, John discovered it and then decided to hide it from Patsy, you'd have to ask yourself why. If John were innocent, he'd have no reason to keep it from her."

I have in fact asked myself "why" and had postulated in an earlier post to Ms. D that fleshed out the BDI theory to a logical conclusion, which included the final cover-up including the garroting, occurring after the 911 call, that John knew of the head blow without Patsy's knowing about it at the time, because he either witnessed it while in a compromised position with the victim or discovered it shortly thereafter, in either case while Patsy was asleep, and could not call an ambulance because of his inability to be able to explain to authorities some very revealing things that would have evidenced what had been happening just prior to or at the moment of the head blow.

I have to bring you up short here and insist on a better response from you as to why it is logical that both parents would have been privy to the fact that Burke struck his sister in the middle of the night.

Your entire blog hinges on John's being privy to facts that Patsy was not privy to, while she was asleep during the killing of the victim. For you to say that "both parents would have known of the head blow" is not only an assumption (not a logical inference from a known fact which is the theme of this blog), but again, it completely contradicts your theory that John was alone (that is with Patsy unaware of anything) and able to be the sole perpetrator of everything that occurred that night and the ensuing back-fill that occurring after the 911 call.

Not confused at all CC. To the contrary, I'm saying that Doc's insistence that both John AND Patsy would have been immediately aware of the head blow is wholly inconsistent with the premise of this blog, which is that Patsy was NOT in a position to know anything that happened during the night, which is why she is innocent and why she made the 911 call with the victim's body in the house. In fact, her innocence is something I completely agree with. Please re-read my post.

I'll also add that the admonition by the ransom note writer about the size of the "attache" case needed has been given short shrift. The writer's intent was to use the only known secure coffin from the house (at the moment of the note's writing) in order to give a "proper burial" to the victim, whether it turned out that way size-wise or time-wise or not, in the event that the metal case were ever dug up. The Samsonite suitcase was in the basement for that reason, though it later became useful to prop up, so to speak, the intruder theory.

Interestingly as an aside, the accent over the "e" in the word attache would perhaps have come about automatically from the writer's using the computer to help write the note consistent with Doc's overlay theory.

In other words, I agree with Doc on everything, but with a pullback on John's striking a lethal killing blow to his beloved daughter's head. I think this was a terrible moment of "chickens coming home to roost" (speaking of chickens by Doc), with some frantic choices having to be made by the man of the house before dawn.

I'm still a bit confused about your complaint, Anonymous. There's a huge difference between assaulting your own child and witnessing an assault on this child by her brother. In the first case, as I see it, you would certainly NOT want to share the details with your wife and there would be every reason to keep her in the dark about what happened. But if you witnessed your son assault his sister, why on earth would you want to keep this event from your wife?

You seem to be implying that, if John had been sexually abusing his daughter, he would not have wanted to call 911 just after discovering what his son had done, out of fear that an autopsy would expose him. All the more reason, as I see it, for devising precisely the sort of plan I've outlined: i.e., dumping the body so no one would ever find it, after staging a phony kidnapping. He would certainly not have planned on calling the police first thing in the morning, knowing that the body was still in the house and an autopsy would eventually be performed in any case.

But, given the assumption that John had been involved in an abusive relation with JonBenet, why include Burke at all? While technically there may be no way to prove he could not have been the one to deliver the head blow, such a theory adds all sorts of unnecessary complications to a fairly straightforward scenario. It's sort of like saying that someone shot during a burglary could have been shot accidentally by his young son who just happened to be playing with a gun at the time. Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

If John would want to present some sort of BDI scenario during a trial, he'd of course be free to do so. But I doubt that any jurors would be impressed. Yes, the dog might have eaten the kid's homework after all, but I don't think too many teachers would buy such an excuse.

If John had been abusing his daughter, then fear of exposure would be more than enough of a motive for murder. No need to drop his frail, nine year old son into the mix.

"But, given the assumption that John had been involved in an abusive relation with JonBenet, why include Burke at all?"

The only reason I can think of Doc is to raise reasonable doubt that JDI. If Burke and John were complicit partners-in-crime, they'd be taking a huge risk suing CBS. Burke has no reason to fear for his freedom; he can't go to prison for something he did as a child. And does he really believe that by defeating CBS his reputation will be restored and the cloud of suspicion he has lived under his entire life will be lifted? If it's money he wants, from what we know, John has restored his income and net worth, certainly not to the levels they were before the murder, but to levels sufficient enough to buy Burke's silence.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Like you, I believe Burke may be hiding things that might incriminate his father, but that such things include complicity in the crime itself is too much of a stretch.

From Doc above: "You seem to be implying that, if John had been sexually abusing his daughter, he would not have wanted to call 911 just after discovering what his son had done, out of fear that an autopsy would expose him. All the more reason, as I see it, for devising precisely the sort of plan I've outlined: i.e., dumping the body so no one would ever find it, after staging a phony kidnapping."

I agree. Which part are you and CC missing? That is what I said in my response to Ms. D and in my dialogue with CC.

From DocG above: "But, given the assumption that John had been involved in an abusive relation with JonBenet, why include Burke at all? While technically there may be no way to prove he could not have been the one to deliver the head blow, such a theory adds all sorts of unnecessary complications to a fairly straightforward scenario."

I'm not trying to add anything. My gut tells me that John did what he was capable of doing that night, and Burke did what he was capable of that night. The twain met in a cataclysmic moment, and you might note that many, many people are taking the position that Burke struck the blow. The missing piece is what happened after that. I just don't see John killing his daughter in a stone cold act like that, even though we agree on the motive for the cover-up.

I am surmising, not introducing for complication purposes, a scenario that reconciles the Burke theory and DocG's theory with an inclusion of all the physical evidence, i.e. the dots on the victim's back, the brain shaking in a desperate attempt to revive her, and the amateurish, astonishingly transparent instructions in the ransom note meant to fool Patsy, not to mention the wholly transparent staging of the window in the basement. To make it clearer, imagine if you will, that the victim's body had only a head blow, and none of the sadistic add-ons, at the moment Patsy made the 911 call, and take it all from there. I am agreeing with Doc as to all of this except for the person who hit her in the head.

Doc, I'll let you respond to CC as to his statement that "to his knowledge" you have never asserted that John struck the head blow. Really?

My scenario for John's cover-up is exactly the same as your supposition, Doc, for John's motive for murder.

The complexity of this case is, as I put forth, the dual complicity of Burke and his father. Doc, you yourself have stated that you believe Burke "knows more than he is revealing." What do you think that might be?

I'm offering what it might be. That is all.

Remember one more thing. CBS had originally planned a third episode last September, and canceled it. What they left out might very well have been the sexual activity of the father and his motive of covering up in the throes of the dilemma he was presented with on that fateful night, if he had in fact been doing "what he was capable of."

The father showed very little curiosity about the intruder, evidenced by (1) his wanting to take the family to Atlanta while his daughter's body was still on the hard floor under the Christmas tree, and (2) during his brief interview with authorities the night of the 27th, he asked nothing about what the autopsy showed earlier that day, as reported in the December 2016 book "We Have Your Daughter," which is an assemblage of facts put together by a dispassionate group of professionals involved with, or in close observance of, the case.

"In other words, I agree with Doc on everything, but with a pullback on John's striking a lethal killing blow to his beloved daughter's head... imagine if you will, that the victim's body had only a head blow, and none of the sadistic add-ons, at the moment Patsy made the 911 call, and take it all from there."

Bearing in mind the caveat "not to add anything", I'll give it a shot.

Imagine, if you will, John securing the things he needed upstairs, running to the basement, wiping off JBR's private parts, changing JBR's underwear, putting her long johns back on, spotting a paint brush close-by, breaking it in half, finding a rope and tying it to the paintbrush using a highly complicated knot used by sailors, strangling his daughter with the fashioned garrote by pulling the rope so tight around her neck her head turned blue, tying a rope around her wrists, raising her arms over her head, tying her ankles together, drawing a red heart on her hand, wrapping her in her favorite blanket, running upstairs, putting on the rest of his clothes, then being at the front door, in six minutes time, breathing regularly and appearing calm and cool-headed given the circumstances, to greet the police.

Hmmm...I guess with regards to the caveat we'll need to do what Avis Rent-A-Car did in the late seventies to gain market share---TRY HARDER!

...my last paragraph above merely is illustrative of another consistency with the DocG theory that the father knew everything that the coroner's examination was going to show. He had no intention of, or need for, sticking around with a bunch of curious cops trying to piece this mess together, as from his point of view there was no mystery, and he had two people in the line of fire that afternoon of the 26th who needed to get the hell out of Dodge. It truly was "an inside job," and he had nothing but disdain for anyone wanting to "intrude" on this family tragedy. Karma had descended, and he was pissed, disgusted, and living in a personal hell that none of us could imagine being in.

Exactly! John wasn't capable of striking a lethal head blow to his daughter, but he was capable of thinking her dead when she wasn't, fashioning a garrote, and strangling her until she was blue in the face.

Anonymous, the problem with your version of my theory is that there is no reason to include Burke, no evidence linking him to the crime and no mystery of the case that could be resolved by including him in the manner you've suggested. The marks on JonBenet's body could have been produced by those train tracks, yes, but they could also have been produced in some other way as well. Regardless, there is no reason to assume that just because they were Burke's train tracks that Burke was the one who prodded her. The only other "evidence" is Burke's fingerprints on a bowl containing some pineapple chunks. If he'd helped his mother put some bowls in the cupboard or possibly moved the bowl out of the way when he was getting some other item out of the cupboard, or for any other of several possible reasons, those prints could easily be explained.

And that's IT! Nothing points to Burke, but a great many things point to John, as I've been at pains to elucidate throughout this blog. So why the need to include him? Because lots of people have now managed to convince themselves he did it? Lots of people convinced themselves that Patsy did it long before Burke became flavor of the month. Lots of people were convinced Helgoth did it, or "Santa" did it, or Chris Wolf did, etc., etc. etc., all for NO good reason, as with BDI.

Zed, there is NO evidence that Burke and JonBenet were together at any time that night. Where is that coming from? And even if those marks were from a train track (a BIG if), why would you assume they were made by Burke? Anyone in the house at the time could have poked her with them.

And if there were any evidence proving that John was involved, the case would have been solved 20 years ago. I've presented evidence supporting a circumstantial case, which is perfectly reasonable in the absence of iron clad proof.

The ONLY reason people assume Burke did it is because it's the only scenario where a cover up by both parents seems reasonable. But when we look more carefully at all the bizarre details, we see how absurd that particular cover up would be. And once we step back to consider the possibility that only one of the Ramseys was involved and the other was in the dark, then the justification for BDI as "making the most sense" falls apart.

Zed, please share the "proof" or "evidence" telling us what time that pineapple was eaten, and by whom. And similarly, the actual evidence he was down in the basement that night. No suppositions or logical inferences please, only proof or solid evidence.

Yes, it's wonderful isn't it, how when you say Doc has presented no evidence, you get held to the same standards. So far nothing you've listed is evidence. You don't know it was the train track. You are "pretty sure" it was her pillow, you simply assume Patsy is lying because it suits your case to do so, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever that Burke and JonBenet were up at the same time, whether in the kitchen or the basement. You see, by the standards you apply to Doc's theory, you've got less than nothing yourself.

Yes it was probably the train track...too big a coincidence that it perfectly lined up there is not even one other alternate possibility what may have caused it. I mean come on.

There was hard evidence proving it was her pillow...im sure of it. Ill have to go back and check that one. Even without the pillow we have hard evidence because the pineapple was in her belly. You honestly think burke ate pineapple and then left it out and then jbr woke up and decided to eat some pineapple that was sitting on the bench? Please.

"It (the train tracks) perfectly lined up there is not even one other alternate possibility what may have caused it."

Not "one other alternate possibility"?Is that so? Then please, by all means, cite your sources proving this fact. If you can't - like so many of your other "proven facts" - then can you please refrain from asserting things that cannot be verified? Speculate all you want, but can you stop pretending you're stating facts, when - at best - all you ever offer us are opinions based on your arbitrary percentage system? It's dishonest, and if you have such a strong case, the evidence should speak for itself without you having to resort to bullshit "facts" in order to strengthen your case.

You see Zed, it's not a question of whether or not I think Patsy lied. It's a question if proof and evidence. You insisted that Doc has none, only suppositions, guesses, and inferences. And all I'm doing is pointing out that you have even less: "you think Patsy was telling the truth?!" does not count as evidence. Neither does your sarcastic use of "please". You've said Doc has no evidence, and you're very quickly proving that you have none either. I mean, the pineapple? The fingerprint can't be placed in time. JonBenet may have had pineapple as part of a fruit cocktail earlier that evening.

You are entitled to reject Doc's thinking, but you're not entitled as far as I can see to claim to have anything more deserving of the name of "evidence" for your own ideas. Don't mean to be rude, and I hope that you can honestly see that what you so far have is:

An assumption that Patsy lied.

A fingerprint on a bowl, no evidence of when it was placed.

No evidence whatsoever the two kids were awake at the same time or in the same room.

Evidence that JonBenet had eaten fruit cocktail.

An interpretation - it might have been the train track - that does not prove how it happened or by whose hand.

And evidence that in interview Burke imagined she had been stabbed by a knife.

There is no hard evidence in this case. Thats why it involves using all these tidbits of information and circumstantial evidence to paint what happened that night. Can this be used as evidence? No, most of it can't be.

The fact I am trying to get across is that JDIers (mainly cc, doc and ms d) continually state that we lack logic, we are naive, we are blah blah blah. When in fact the BDI theory (or Patsy had to be involved theory) actually has much more circumstantial evidence and a lot more merit. There is a reason why Kolar and CBS experts went this way. There is a reason why both John AND Patsy were indicted by GJ. There is a reason why Patsy told so many lies and was so inconsistent. Thats all I'm trying to get across. This whole blog is built on JDI and how solid a theory it must be, where in reality there is no evidence at all pointing to John doing this alone. None. Not even a teeny tiny iota. Not a scrap.

I do have to give Doc credit for allowing others to post their theories though as a lot of blog owners would simply delete posts that dont align to the blogs notion. For that, I salute Doc.

Zed, you and MHM could start your own blog, as you two while having opposite theories and thoughts on the case, work pretty well together. That is what James Lofton and a pal did. They threw out everything, discussed it - don't know if you two read it, the gracious Lil provided all of that a while back. 22 or so pages - really interesting reading. By the way, hi Lil, glad to see you.

"The fact I am trying to get across is that JDIers (mainly cc, doc and ms d)....

Dear: CC, Doc, and Ms D:

Sorry you guys have to keep listening to Zed. When you've had enough let, me where you are and I'll send you each air tickets to Tahiti where you can join me here on the beach enjoying Pina Coladas under clear blue skies. What color would you like your little umbrella toothpicks? Warm Summer Rain Regards,

Exactly the response you expected, Zed? That is very perceptive, as I never expected a comment from Mike G that involved sipping pina coladas in Tahiti, that's for sure! Do you do readings? If not, you should start charging for them, you'd have to be a gifted psychic if you saw that one coming! :P

BDI is not likely what happened.Jonbenet was found barefoot and her feet were clean which means the head blow did not happen in the basement.She did not go to the basement. But she was finished off there and proof is her urine on that carpet.

There are no signs that she was dragged down to the basement. Which means she was carried there. It could not have been Burke.

I'd agree with that. Unless that's where Burke urinated after finding his dad sexually assaulting the intruder, swung his torch back to strike the intruder, not realising JonBenet was behind him, striking her a fatal blow etc.

I understand that, Zed. And in the absence of real evidence everything we have to go on is circumstantial, which always implies the application of a degree of logic. And for the life of me I just can't get over the basic logical hurdles for BDI: either he did the whole lot, in which case Patsy would NEVER have risked everything and suffered years of the very worst suspicions and slanders, been thought a child killer by half the population, and lost half her friends, just to cover for the boy who'd garrotted her beloved daughter to death; or else they found something that could've been reported as an accident, could never have been prosecuted as murder, and decided the best way forward was to turn it into a sex murder, killing their daughter in the process, and disguised the sex murder by staging it as a kidnapping-gone-wrong. I mean, it actually becomes a kind of crazy Rube Goldberg murder machine.

Here's a surprise for you Zed: I actually *want* BDI to be the truth. The way I see it, JBR is dead, there is no bringing her back, and it looks like there will be no justice for her death. In which case, those of us who are interested are condemned to sift through the meaningless debris for our own amusement. And BDI, let's be honest, is a much better story than JDI, whichever way you look at it. Because he's either a psychofreakchild who bashed, abused, and garrotted his sister to death for no reason, or over some pineapple, and then went on Dr Phil to grin about it, and then sued CBS for accusing him - OR he bashed his sister in the head, poked her a bit, and then his dad covered for him by garrotting his sister to death and faking a kidnapping-gone-wrong for no reason. Either option is so gloriously wacked-out, I'd much prefer either option to just another story of an adult male sexually abusing another child.

If that sounds callous, I can only say it changes nothing, I am sorry for her and want to hold my own daughter closer when I think of JB's horrible death. But it doesn't hurt her more for us to speculate on who did the terrible thing, or to have these odd preferences.

I hope it was Burke. I just don't think it was, and moreover, can't see how it possibly could've been.

I hear your compassion MHN and like you too, want justice for that little girl from the Boulder system that failed her and continues to do so. I think it's very possible Burke went BACK to bed that night not fully knowing what he had done, not thinking of it in terms of "murder", only that he had prodded her and she wasn't getting up. Of course I don't know that to be the case. But if so, if he started something as an act of childish torture/play, with JB as willing subject at least initially, it obviously got out of hand. Patsy came upon the "scene" while still up packing, and then ran and got John, again, only conjecture. But the first polygraph of hers was "inconclusive", the second "deceptive" and the third (with only three questions asked) "passed." A polygrapher told me you cannot fool the machine but you can fool the polygrapher. One way is by being asked the same question over and over (by say, attorneys) until you register "telling the truth". Essentially you become numb to the question. If asked, either John or Patsy "did you kill your daughter" both could have registered "truthful" when saying "no." And Burke also may have gone to bed in the dark, kept in the dark literally and told only that his sister was kidnapped at 7 a.m. and later that she was dead. Does he know now? What kind of therapy did he get for two years after his sister's death. And does he seem normal now? He has had and continues to have "secrets" that if he told wouldn't be secrets anymore as he told the social worker. Cagey, smart, and possibly partly oblivious and definitely not grieving.

"If asked, either John or Patsy "did you kill your daughter" both could have registered "truthful" when saying "no." "

So, neither John, nor Patsy, garroted JonBenet according to your theory, Inq? Burke did the bashing, along with the strangling to death?

"And Burke also may have gone to bed in the dark, kept in the dark literally and told only that his sister was kidnapped at 7 a.m. and later that she was dead."

So, let me get this straight.....Burke didn't find it odd that, on the very same night he smashed his sister over the head, strangled her to the point where his home made garrote embedded itself in her skin, after which he couldn't rouse her by poking her with his train tracks, she just "happened" to be kidnapped shortly after?

Extremely odd was being told his sister was kidnapped, not being communicated with regarding the subject of his sister's death, Burke just wanting to move on, having no apparent affect one way or the other regarding his sister being murdered, yep, it's all odd. As for the garrotting, if there is a cord tied around a child's neck attached to a stick and bound by a strong knot and that stick is twisted on a victim that is not struggling Burke could have accomplished it, yes. But I don't know if he did. John is up to his eyeballs in most of the staging I believe. There may have been other signs of Burke's disturbing personality that were covered up by parents or part of Patsy's denial for some time. It's as plausible as any other theory of a father molesting his daughter over time and not knowing if that is the case.

You can build a fairly interesting set of facts concerning prints found or not found, etc. And it's all interesting, don't get me wrong. It's only the overarching theory of the whole bdi case that is problematic.

And that's a fairly big "only". But Zed, I've said it before and I'll say it again; you may be right, I may be wrong.

"Zed, there is NO evidence that Burke and JonBenet were together at any time that night. Where is that coming from?"

No there is not. But they both ate pineapple that night (please don't tell me Burke didn't eat pineapple..because you and I both know that is bollocks). Burke and JBR were both awake that night and both ate pineapple. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise they were probably in each others company at some point that night. Which doesn't prove anything...but...ok ill stop there.

"even if those marks were from a train track (a BIG if), why would you assume they were made by Burke? Anyone in the house at the time could have poked her with them."

Unless another item is put forward as being the item which made those marks, I firmly believe the train tracks had to have caused those. They were in the house, close to the body and matched perfectly. You really think John or Patsy would use a train track to poke her? A train track? Sorry but train tracks has Burke written all over it and would explain trying to wake her up. Please give me a better explanation...im all ears.

"I've presented evidence supporting a circumstantial case, which is perfectly reasonable in the absence of iron clad proof"

Sorry, but no you have not provided any evidence. Not proving John did it alone anyway. Not even the teeniest tiniest bit of evidence. Just like you don't believe I have shown evidence that Burke was involved. I am sorry but I speak the truth. You present a theory. Nothing more. Some people like your theory. Some people think its absurd.

"The ONLY reason people assume Burke did it is because it's the only scenario where a cover up by both parents seems reasonable."

Sorry but this is 100% not true. Why?Because I am adamant Burke was involved and this is NOT the only reason why I think this. Is it one of the reasons? Yes. But there is a stackload (yes, stackload) of other reasons why plenty of people think Burke was involved.

1. It's "bullocks" to question whether Burke did, in fact, eat pineapple after coming home from the White's party. He *could not* have prepared that bowl of pineapple at any other point during the day - fingerprints come with a time stamp, obviously. No evidence Burke ate pineapple with JB that night, but who cares, right, Zed? The fact you said it's "bullocks" to believe otherwise must mean you're right.2. He "firmly believes" the train tracks are what caused the marks on JB's body. No definitive evidence they were the cause, but who cares? A firm belief is all the evidence Zed needs!3. That he hasn't come up with a "better explanation", means his explanation must be correct.4. He doesn't see "even the teeniest, tiniest bit of evidence" that John did it, therefore, he didn't do it.5. He is correct because he "speaks the truth". Yeah.....we just spout a bunch of lies instead. It's good to see you're the one, honest, person here fighting for justice, Z! 6. JDI cannot be guilty because Zed is "100% sure it is not true". Well......there you have it. It's solved. But this is the clincher.....why is he "100% certain John didn't do it? Because he is "adamant Burke was involved"! Who can argue with logic like that?!

In a nutshell, this is what you're asserting, Zed: "Burke did it because you speak the truth and you are 100,000,000% sure he did it. The pineapple and the train tracks are a "stack load of evidence" that proves John didn't do it, and that Burke did it, because it's just "bullocks" to believe otherwise....and lots of other people believe it too, so it must be true."

Well, no not quite Ms D. Kolar - whom I think you can agree did some good investigative work finding the intact old cobweb and debunking the intruder theory also lined up the marks on her body with that of train track part. You don't need to take Zed's word for it.

To say Burke was a "frail" 9 year old implies by the definition of the word "weak," "sickly." He was within the weight requirement of a we can say 10 year old boy as he was just one month shy of age 10. And, he was, if that, twice the weight of his sister. He played baseball, he had his own golf clubs and practiced golf, he was a boy scout and camper. You are basing "frail" on old photos taken next to his sister all dressed up in his Sunday best. What I see sitting on the social worker's couch is long-limbed, agile, and more than capable of overpowering his sister. He has also never behaved in a way that would be considered "traumatized" over the murder of his sister. Two years after JB's death when questioned by Schuler and praised by Patsy for getting through it commented "that was the most BORING THING I have ever done in my life." But you really need to look at the parents as accessories, that's where the real tells begin and end.

In their telling of the fiction of the events of that morning Patsy says she sees the Ransom Note on the steps but "steps down past them", swings around and then starts reading. She's already checked her daughter's room by her own first stated account, not there, then finds a note, steps over it, turns around twists and swings around for reading purposes being careful (both P and J) to never say they touched the note. Wouldn't anyone else just pick up the paper rather than rotate up and down and around to read it? Something stinks in the telling of that, one of among many stories.

Sorry, Inq., but your opinions have changed too often to carry any weight here. If you have something new to offer, fine, but continually rehashing old ideas you yourself have refuted several times already is not helpful.

What would be new anyway? Isn't everyone rehashing old ideas? I just can't rule out Patsy. And if I can't rule out Patsy and I don't think she would be in denial about her husband for years and carry on with a legal defense of their preposterous intruder theory. And if I can't rule her out then her stake in the game would be to work with John to protect not so much their son, who couldn't be prosecuted, but his job, his position, their position, their status. How would it have looked in a headline: "Son of important Lockheed Martin division head kills six year old sister Christmas night."

The purpose of this long winded note was to confuse, derail, misdirect and keep hidden for as long as possible what happened under that roof, that night. To make it look like an "inside job" as John said himself while carrying a dead JB up from the basement. Not long afterward he drafted a letter to Lou Smit with a list of suspects, people who worked for Access Graphics, the housekeeper, her husband, you name it. An inside job of those who were familiar with the family.

It was probably discussed that night whether or not to get rid of the body, but then again it depends on what time she was "discovered" and if after deciding on a course of action that included a Ransom Note how long that may have taken. It's also very probable that Patsy would not have wanted her daughter rolled off a mountain into some ravine, in any stretch of the imagination, in order to give her one final thing which would have been a "proper burial." MO

I agree with you. The RN was a ploy to misdirect, mislead, etc. LE, which it did.

Getting rid of the body may have been the plan when the RN was written, but PR wouldn't have gone along with that and so they kept the body there, figuring that LE would find her immediately.

I really don't know how anyone could say PR wasn't involved in this. We could list the endless inconsistencies, the "I don't recalls", the fingerprints or lack thereof, the refusal to cooperate with LE and on and on.

BR is not a normal 30 year old man and wasn't a normal 10 year old boy. They purposely used those old pictures when showing the kids because they didn't want anyone to realize how much bigger and stronger he truly was and how he could've easily harmed his sister.

EG, Inq, I just can't agree. Listen, the RN took at least 30 minutes to compose and write, probably longer. That time could've been spent completing the window staging. That would've been much more sensible. After all, the RN will fool nobody if there was no point of entry for an intruder, whereas a convincing point of forced entry tells LE much more than an obviously fake RN.

The trouble with the oh-so-clever misdirection ploy you're imagining is that it simply wouldn't work. And it didn't. With the exception of true (and fellow) believer Lou Smit, LE never thought anyone from outside the family killed that child.

JR also counted on the fact that several keys had been given out to people and that the alarm wasn't set. He never said definitely that the window was broken by an intruder, in fact he said the opposite which was he thought he broke the window climbing in half naked in the dark.

Of course it was an inside job---JR tried to make LE think it was someone who knew the R's, not the R's themselves.

EG, "He never said definitely that the window was broken by an intruder, in fact he said the opposite which was he thought he broke the window climbing in half naked in the dark."

Yes, I think the whole window issue is covered somewhere on Doc's blog? I think it was mentioned once or twice.

My point is not answered by your comment, with respect: the RN you claim pointed to an insider but not necessarily a family member. I say, however, John had no need to point LE towards a family friend or 'insider', none at all. Why? That could just send an innocent family friend to prison for decades.

Instead of playing high-risk games like that, why not leave no RN, and devote the time instead to staging a convincing, completed, forced entry point? Then you have unequivocal evidence of an intruder, rather than hypotheticals involving keys etc. John would've known that it was entirely possible that every person who had been given keys could provide a rock-solid alibi and vouch for the location of the keys on the night of the murder.

The things BDIs say always seem designed to make the facts fit the theory, always a stretch, always logical on the surface but absolutely creaky once you scratch at the surface.

And I do have compassion for Burke. Imagine you have done something terrible and could be responsible for your sister's death and neither one of your parents talked to you about it. One of them just gets him up at 7, tells him his sister is missing, and shuttles him off to the White's house for the day. The officer said he was crying when he left the house. Then by Patsy's accounts when questioned if she ever talked to Burke about what happened she said no. How very lonely he must have felt, yet tells Dr. Phil he just wanted to move on or words to that effect.

"We could list the endless inconsistencies, the "I don't recalls", the fingerprints or lack thereof, the refusal to cooperate with LE and on and on."

Excuse me but I just got through making just such a list. And one by one I refuted every instance where Patsy has been accused of lying or dissembling. Everyone reading here was invited to respond, yet, to date, no one really has.

Where have you been? Read over my two previous posts and if you have a problem with anything I've written then by all means tell me where I've gone wrong.

Doc, maybe we - I - wasn't clear. You wanted us to respond to your responses? I offered up a few questions, as did Zed and you responded. I don't really want to refute your responses, they are yours. I think if John acted alone you have put together a very concise explanation for the events of that night. I am always going to have a problem with if he worked on that note - and it must have taken quite a bit of time, to put in dire warnings not to call LE, that they were being monitored, etc., etc., that he would not even be in the same vicinity as she when she supposedly stumbled over the note on her way to the kitchen, so as to prevent her from going against the note. She says she ran upstairs, or that they met on the stairs, or the landing (they are both not too clear on just who was running where at what precise time) and she says she is going to call the police. Sometimes he says it was his idea to call. In any event had he really not wanted her to call (and I know we've been over and over this) he wouldn't have left it to chance by being in another part of the house where Patsy was alone to find it. And since there's still a chance she hadn't called yet he could have warned her not to do so, by at least making a pretense of reading it before allowing her to take any action. You haven't gone wrong, it's just bothering me, and maybe a few others? So he not only says go ahead, call 911 but he also allows her to call their friends over. Now the foreign faction will never return their daughter. If his idea was to get Patsy and Burke out of the house he would not have displayed the note, he would have gone downstairs on some pretext, found it himself and brought it up to her. Not left it to chance. So that's the first big problem for me, then a string of other ones I've listed.

Inq, from my perspective your objections are based on unfounded assumptions. You've decided for yourself what John would have been likely to do but you neglect to consider that he might have had something very different in mind. We have no way of knowing. I could just as easily insist that he didn't want to be the one to discover the note, that he wanted to distance himself from it by having Patsy discover it, and also that he felt confident she'd read the whole thing and be too frightened to call the police. While that might sound unlikely to you it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Also if we read Patsy's version of what happened, it looks as though she caught him off guard and ran downstairs to make the call while he was checking on Burke. So according to this version she may literally have faked him out and ran to make the call before he could stop her.

The bottom line, for me, is that we have no way of knowing exactly what happened, what we think we know is based on their version(s) of those events. For all we know John discovered the note before Patsy, or maybe they had an argument over what to do, after both read the note very carefully.

What we DO know for a FACT is that Patsy is the one who made that call, NOT John. And she would NOT have made it if she had written that note or was involved in any sort of plot to stage a kidnapping, which tells us she must be innocent. Since so much of the rest of their story is uncertain, I prefer to stick with what we DO know for sure rather than speculate endlessly on what we do not know.

Just because PR called 911, that makes her innocent? Someone please explain that to me.

Do you not know that guilty people call 911 all the time?

If your explanation is going to be because JR hadn't finished staging yet, I am not buying that. They had half the night to stage the scene, and they did it thinking they covered everything. They knew time was running out because they were scheduled for a flight, so they had no choice but to call.

Yes, Doc, we do know that Patsy made the call. What we don't know is that was the intention of the pair given whatever transpired during the night. A call had to be made. Logically it should have been made even earlier given that who crams in all of the things she would have had to have done to get her family ready for a trip in one hour. She even adds a strange detail of going to the laundryroom and inspecting JB's red jumpsuit for spots and thinking to herself I must get that cleaned when I come back. Wasting even more time. She states she looks in JB's room, she's not there, so she goes on downstairs to what, make coffee? That's not clear. She doesn't check Burke's room? She hears John's shower water running - yet he's heard on the end of the 911 call. He's reading a note in his underwear, spreading it out on the floor or stairs at approximately the same time he would be in the shower. Time is tick tick ticking away. Yes, she made the call, she had to - their daughter was "missing" and they were about to catch a plane out of town.

We've been all over this sort of thing time after time. I refuse to get sucked into this argument again. Read what I've written above and elsewhere on this blog and you'll have your answers. No need to agree, but PLEASE don't keep bringing up the same issues as though they've never been addressed before.

In any event this is a John Did It Blogsite. If we agree with that premise we're thoughtful and considerate and good thinkers. If we have reservations they are to be argued down. If we change our minds keep it to ourselves. Unless of course we change it over to the JDI scenario outlined here. I've been a guest here for far too long. Sorry but an argument against anyone BUT John is flawed from the start. So I'll take a page from Vern and say thank you, it's futile to argue and also take a page from Burke and move on.

Doc wrote:"What we DO know for a FACT is that Patsy is the one who made that call, NOT John. And she would NOT have made it if she had written that note or was involved in any sort of plot to stage a kidnapping, which tells us she must be innocent."

Doc, you chided Inq for "decid[ing] for yourself what John would have been likely to do", but aren't you doing the exact same thing with Patsy?

No, because we know for a fact that Patsy is the one who made that call. Inq's speculations regarding John are just that: speculations. We also know the contents of the ransom note and can easily infer that it is, indeed, a ransom note. Put these two facts together and it's clear that Patsy could not have written such a note without planning to get rid of the body before calling the police. Otherwise writing a phony ransom note to stage a kidnapping MAKES NO SENSE!! Got it?

The only other alternative would be some sort of bizarre intruder theory, featuring a kindapper stupid enough to wait till after entering the house of his victim to write his ransom note, and then careless enough to forget to actually kidnap his victim and also careless enough to leave his note behind anyhow.

I find it interesting that so many posting here have no problem with my logic regarding the intruder theory, but can't accept the same logical process when applied to the Ramseys.

John, it has nothing to do with what is likely or unlikely: this is absolutely fundamental - if Patsy had been part of an attempt to stage a kidnapping to cover for a murder (that's the only logical, non speculative explanation for the existence and contents of the note) then why would she ruin a plan she was part of, by calling 911 with the body in the basement?

Can you really not see the difference between guessing at what people are "likely" to have done, and stating that if someone was participating in a scheme they would not have deliberately and knowingly taken action to completely thwart that scheme?

That depends on exactly what the scheme was. What I can never get past is that the supposed scheme to dump the body before calling the police is just a flat out assumption. Plausible alternatives have been suggested. That's something that you just cannot know for sure.

No John, Kolar in fact reproduces stats demonstrating that sexual experimentation between siblings is not as rare as we might like to think. But I can't recall - can anyone help - whether he thinks Burke made and used the garotte, or that John found his daughter injured and decided to help by strangling her to death.

I think with a boy as young as Burke, whatever he was doing with her that to you and I looked "sexual" wouldn't to Burke. I don't let John off the hook as an innocent bystander in the least, although what part he exactly played is unclear, to me. I have a question for those that think Burke "did it." Not for the ones who think John did it. And it is this: Who's idea (do you think) was it to write/leave a note? This is for the Burke theorists only.

To be honest, the idea to leave a note could have been from John or Patsy. I really don't know. I'm leaning towards Patsy as I believe she wrote it. But just because she wrote it doesn't mean it was her idea.

Okay, thanks Zed. You think in the chaos of finding her daughter either comatose or dead and after a frantic discussion with John that Patsy came up with the idea of a Ransom Note? Thank you Zed. Anyone else? The IDEA of a note, not the writing of it.

Thanks EG. The note was really well thought out, wasn't it? If no note had been left and Patsy simply got up, couldn't find JB, alerted John, called police, police would have questioned the Ramseys if they had looked everywhere. She would have been found early on, house sealed, crime scene tape applied, no further staging could have been accomplished and John and Patsy would have immediately been taken into custody for questioning. Same thing if the note had said "your daughter is dead. Look in the basement." How ridiculous that would have been. Again, house sealed, Ramseys taken into custody, questions as to who had a motive, how did they get in, didn't you hear anything. However, if she's been kidnapped then she isn't there, is she. And you can keep staging, and waiting as long as possible for a call that isn't coming fill your house with friends and won't be questioned, and time is ticking away while evidence becomes contaminated and a body decomposes.

Yes, thank you EG. So, a plan. A note. When Officer French checked the basement didn't John tell him he had already searched down there? Directing him away from the wine cellar door, and Officer French doesn't open the door. By thinking she was kidnapped the primary goal of the officers was to check for a point of entry by which she would have been abducted, not murdered and left in the house. The main point of a Note.

Hahahaha! Spot on, MHN! Except you forgot the part where John says to Patsy: "Shouldn't you shower and change your clothes so it doesn't look as though you've been up all night violating our dead daughter's body?" Whereby Patsy responds with: "No, Honey, I don't want to ruin my perfect make up, I want to look good for the scores of people I'm going to invite over this morning. I'd rather look pretty than innocent.....besides, I really like this sweater I wore to the White's party last night, it brings out the blue in my eyes."

I think Patsy's sweater was red, which would have matched the redness of the whites of her eyes from the hysterics at finding her daughter deceased, and being up all night. So your colors are off, Ms D. :)

I think the note was Johns idea dictated by him to Patsy. "Listen carefully" said by john was him telling her to listen carefully and she wrote that down. "You didn't have to write that but just leave it" said JohnThe ransom note was written just to confuse police and buy them more time so they wouldn't find her body right away and so the parents wouldn't be considered as suspects because it was a "kidnapping"

Explain - please - how this note bought them time before the body was discovered. Explain why, if they were happy to have the body found, they didn't want it found 'straight away'. Explain please why, if they needed more time and didn't want the body found as soon as LE arrived, they didn't merely delay the 911 call.

I presume that, having suggested this theory, there is some reasoning behind it, so please do share.

I believe the biggest mistake that LE made was not separating JR and PR from the beginning and questioning them. However, they were told to treat them with kid gloves and stand down. That came from someone at the top. Phone records were withheld, which begs the question, why? BR's medical records were sealed, I believe until this day. Why?

We don't know if the 911 call was the first call made that morning. Based on JR's influential status in Boulder, we don't know who he may spoken to and why.

Yes I agree they should have sealed off the crime scene and questioned each parent including Burke separately for inconsistenciesThey should have taken control and watched every person that was in that house and kept them in one room

I believe in Steve Thomas's book, they finally got the phone and cell records but nothing stood out other than the fact that a lot of calls were made on the cell phone in October and November but not a single one was made in December. Kind of strange but I don't know what that says.

You HAVE to rule Patsy out, because for your theory to work, Patsy Ramsey CANNOT be involved in any way. Patsy being involved in staging or murder = JDI is FALSE. So, I read your posts on this issue as coming from a skewed perspective, just like I am viewing things through a skewed perspective.

The problem with ruling out Patsy completely is that you would have to make a pile of concessions for her behavior.

-She was at the 30+ doctor appointments with JBR, SO if there was a long history of abuse, the Pediatrician would have had to discuss it as a possibility with Patsy. JB having multiple UTI's would have at least raised some suspicion if the doctor thought abuse was a probable cause. SO, on this issue, is Patsy turning a blind eye to John's abuse?

- Most experts who have viewed the RN, conclude that Patsy was more likely to have written the note. Forget the words used, I am strictly talking handwriting. Can it be used in court? No. But, for purpose of this blog, PR was more likely the author than John

-Patsy writing out the actual words One Hundred and Eighteen Thousand Dollars as opposed to $118,000. Just a tad odd

-Window story, boots, stuffed animal in the room. More lies that Patsy told. Why lie if its the truth?

The bottom line is that of course Patsy HAD to be gaslit because that's the only way JDI makes any sense. I am in the camp that there is just way too many inconsistencies and red flags with her behavior that have led me to conclude that Patsy MUST have been involved.

"I am in the camp that there is just way too many inconsistencies and red flags with her behavior "

Well obviously I see the same things but from a very different perspective. As I see it, the "way too many inconsistencies and red flags" stem from raging confirmation bias on the part of those who made up their minds long ago that Patsy HAD to be involved. So anything that might possibly look suspicious was, and still is, seen as a sign of guilt.

The fact that, for instance, people keep coming back to the lack of fingerprints on the note is a perfect example. Since when is the LACK of fingerprints seen as evidence of anything at all? How could that possibly tell us anything of value regarding who wrote that note? But for some odd reason it's seen as meaningful evidence linking Patsy to the crime. As for the lack of "tears," my God that's a totally absurd misunderstanding, but some people refuse to let it alone.

Same with the fact that she called in friends after calling the police. That's something you might not have wanted to do, or me either. You can even say it was inappropriate, insensitive and downright foolish. But it tells us nothing about Patsy's involvement in the crime or coverup. If she were "putting on an act" she would certainly NOT have so blatantly ignored the warnings in the note she herself had written.

She was hysterical with anxiety and possibly fearing for her own life, so she wanted people there around her. To me that's obvious, but if you're convinced ahead of time of her guilt then any unusual or odd behavior becomes evidence. We see this syndrome over and over again in the long list of items I've listed. You can insist until your hoarse that all this constitutes some sort of "red flag" but for me the flag is on the other foot (forgive the mixed metaphor), i.e., a whole bunch of red flags signaling confirmation bias.

Doc - In this case I guess I am unique in that I started as a JDI from the moment I read your blog to about a year ago. Here are the other few things that just gnawed at me

- Would Patsy really be in a hurry to get off the phone with 911 if she isn't involved? Assuming she isn't involved, then 911 is her only lifeline in that moment. She doesn't ask about S.B.T.C other than to say that's who signed it. She doesn't stay on the phone while John searches the house for a point of entry. She just doesn't act like a Mom searching for answers. If you want to say she is frantic, then I move to part B, which is calling friends

What MOM with 2 kids would hurry off a 911 call, so that 7 minutes later she can call friends over? If 1 kid is taken, then who wouldn't hold onto Burke for dear life? Or at least make sure he is withing her sight???? They just let him sleep? Yea, I don't buy that

J - the same points keep getting recycled over and over. It's a wonder Doc doesn't actually give up and disable comments.

For the tenth time: a 911 call handler has stated that not everybody stays on the line after summoning LE. Some callers even think that they *need* to get off the line in order for the handler to complete the task. In no sense was the 911 call handler a 'lifeline'. No one was injured, no one was battering the door down. They had searched the house and found their daughter missing, and the presence of a ransom note clearly indicated that the intruder was gone. Patsy didn't need a 'lifeline' she needed to know that the cops were on the way, and she was reassured that they were. This 'lifeline' canard keeps on getting repeated by people who have statistically NO IDEA how many people hang up on 911 calls and how many stay on the line until police arrive. And this, this uninformed, parroted pseudo-evidence gets repeated on this blog every ten minutes as a sign of Patsy's complicity.

Don't forget that the 911 dispatcher Kim Archuleta told downright untruths about Patsy - saying that her tone completely changed after she thought she had hung up, and that she heard Patsy saying something that the full tape revealed her not to have said at all. As she said on the CBS show, "There were things being said that somebody needed to know". She asserted that had she been asked to testify, her testimony could have "turned the case around." The only thing the tape revealed was that there was no change of tone from Patsy, that she was clearly in shock and kept repeating, possibly, "Help me, Jesus, Help me Jesus."

Why would she ask a call dispatcher what SBTC stood for? Why would Patsy think that a local 911 call handler would know what SBTC stood for? This is such a nothing point I don't understand why it keeps getting made.

"What MOM with 2 kids would hurry off a 911 call, so that 7 minutes later she can call friends over? If 1 kid is taken, then who wouldn't hold onto Burke for dear life? Or at least make sure he is withing her sight???? They just let him sleep? Yea, I don't buy that"

What sort of mom would hurry off a 911 call? A mom who thought that the 911 call was completed - that she had called for police officers to come to the house, and had been reassured they were on the way. Simple.

Calling friends over? Maybe that's not entirely normal, but how many of us have had any type of experience comparable to this? Maybe she felt vulnerable and wanted her support group around her, safety in numbers? Just because it's slightly peculiar doesn't make it evidence of complicity.

Ditto waking Burke. Yeah, that's peculiar. As a parent I never want my kid to see me anxious, tearful, upset, or facing things I can't control. I sure as hell would feel an instinctive need to shield my kid from the hysteria and panic in the house that morning. I can understand it. You think it wasn't normal? Sure. Are there any stats on what is 'normal' in these extreme circumstances?

MHN - Fair response on the 911 call. I don't agree, but its a justifiable reason

What you didn't answer and conveniently didn't was the issue regarding Patsy reading the note. She skimmed it. Calls 911....waits 7 min and calls friends over. The RN was the ONLY clue they would have had to getting their daughter back. ZERO mention of telling the cops to be discreet as possible. ZERO mention of the note saying they would kill JBR if the police were called. The note says specifically to not tell anybody and in 7 minutes, they have called the police and their friends (4 people). Even IF Patsy hangs up that 911 call and immediately starts reading it, there is NO WAY to dissect that note in 7 minutes. You try to do it. The note mentions money that is very close to John's bonus money, YET is there is a mention from John or Patsy about looking at the few select coworkers who knew that amount? There could only have been a handful of people TOPS that knew $118,000 was John's bonus, YET there isn't a big deal made out of it. NO discussions of S.B.T.C. This is PRE INTERNET being a big thing, so wouldn't you think you would be asking anybody and everybody you spoke with if they saw ANYTHING.

I can't disagree, J, as a parent you'd devour every word of the note several times over, desperate for clues or information. After all, far more than the 911 call handler, that note IS your lifeline. It may be the only thing that keeps your daughter alive. I can't disagree that her behavior is highly peculiar and warrants close examination.

I seriously have NO CLUE! So, I don't want to divulge too much, but I know an alternate that was on that trial and had 2nd degree been on the table, that's how he would have leaned. There is no doubt she did it. My belief is she had been using chloroform on Caylee for some time. This particular time, she used too much and it killed her. Everything that followed was a panicked cover up.

J's partly right - Ashton didn't charge her properly. For the rest, the panel saw reasonable doubt Casey had premeditated the crime and so could not in good conscience have found Murder One. Some judges give terrible Jury Instructions, resulting in jurors mistaking "reasonable doubt"for "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "any doubt at all". Someone should standardize the damned things.

That's a very good point CC. Do you have a layman-friendly and brief delineation of the difference between reasonable doubt and no doubt at all? I'm guessing that in, for example, a capital case a jury might well want no doubt at all before returning a guilty verdict?

The definition at wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonsble_doubt is based on the Blacks Law Dictionary definition, is about as user-friendly as it gets, and pretty much parallels the suggestions I used to make to Hizzoner (both sides may do so, butthe bench usually ignores 'em - hubris).

I still await an Answer to my question to BDIers of ten days ago: Why, if John and Patsy were in on it together, weren't all her "lies and inconsistencies" rehearsed out of her in the four months between the murder and their first BPD interview?

CC - The simple answer is that if BDI, it was a horrible accident that happened around 10pm that night. What followed had to be a frantic cover up with the police arriving early in the morning.

Because I believe Burke did it, I also believe that John and Patsy weren't probably aware of details that would come to light later on in the case. Pineapple bowl, boots, stuffed animal, etc. I think John and Patsy had to think they were smarter than everybody when it came to the RN and quickly had to realize that it wasn't the case which left them somewhat scrambling.

CC - Nothing to rehearse. Just keep responding with "I don't recall" and that's all there was to it. They blamed everything on the chaos that ensued upon finding the RN. When asked whose idea it was to call 911, neither could really recall. JR couldn't recall if he owed a pair of Hi Tech boots and PR couldn't recall if BR did either. When asked about the oversized panties, PR couldn't recall having ever seen them before.

CC, this case, as well all know, is extremely complex. This was such an elaborate cover-up that no one is capable of NOT mixing up their stories. I go back and forth between PDI and BDI. I really struggle with JDI although I don't find it ridiculous.

It strikes me as a fairly straightforward Locked Room Mystery. What gums it up is the fact that the only available evidence does not point conclusively to just one person. That's why I think motive is important to this particular case.

Nevertheless, however little they may have known, and thanks to Hunter & Co., there was very little of which they were unaware, they would, at the very least, have been in tandem on the 911 call and the broken window.

CC, your point about the evidence pointing to so many people is what I was referring to when I said it was such a complicated case. You have four different theories that people who follow the case seem to be very adamant about. Couple that with a bizarre and inept DA's office who seemed to do everything in their power to hinder the investigation and deflect attention from the Ramseys, despite numerous experts all saying there was no intruder, and you have a very bizarre case.

By and large the BDI contingent seems agreed that John and Patsy conspired to murder their daughter to protect Burke (Talk about bizarre!). My point is that had they risked the death penalty for Murder One and conspiracy to commit, they would have been damned sure to get their stories aligned; therefore they did nothing of the kind.

For me, when it comes to BDI, I don't think the parents knew she was alive. Or, Burke completely killed her, but didn't realize it, and the parents came up with the whole intruder staging scenario to both cover it up and convince Burke that he wasn't responsible for her death.

I agree, Gumshoe. I don't believe JR or PR killed her. I believe they are responsible for the cover up. Not any part of the murder. And yes, I do believe a bit of gaslighting, false memory, call it what you liked may have happened. However, not with Patsy, but with Burke.

CC, my point above talks about how I think it's possible that the parents might not have known she was dead. I doubt the parents were thinking clearly if they came across an unconscious JBR. I also think some strangulation may have occurred where Burke tried to drag JBR by the collar to move her somewhere, thus leaving the initial red mark around her neck.

Also, can't the same be asked of why John waited that long? So John smashes his daughter's head in, which was planned because his incestuous molesting ways were about to be exposed, then waits 45 minutes to 2 hours to finish her off? Sorry, not buying it.

I think John hoped the head blow had killed her, so he did a little staging, went and checked . . .no, still breathing . . . arranged the RN, went back and checked. . . like that. To my way of thinking he'd always intended to use a garrote to suggest a foreign faction, but he wanted her to be profoundly unconscious and near death to spare her the pain of strangulation and spare himself having to struggle with her.

I think PR got up much earlier than 5:30AM and when she didn't see JBR in her bed, she went into BR's room and when she didn't see her there, starting screaming, "Where's my baby", and screamed for JR. Upon searching the house, they found their dead daughter. I don't know what happened between JBR and BR, but I believe they were playing some sort of game (non sexual) and something happened. BR was not a normal child and had been seeing a therapist. Why? And why are those records still sealed today?

Why did PR call the doctor three times within a short span of time? Was BR's aggression towards JBR escalating?Why was 911 called two or three days prior?

CC.. I am not sure if all experts are in agreement as to what came first, the head blow or the garrote. Some felt there was too little bleeding into the brain for her to have been alive when the blow was struck.

What aggression? Please document, and not with the tired old golf club accident. No one, including Patsy, knows why she called 3 times after hours on 12/17. I think JBR had vaginitis again, and when she finally got through to Beuf he told her there was nothing left but to do a full pelvic after the holidays. My speculation - tomato, tomahto.

You need to read the autopsy report. She died of ligature strangulation. Then Google petechial hemmorhage - JBR had it, and it's only caused by asphixia.

C'mon, EG. You've been here long enough to have absorbed some of this, whether you agree or no.

EG - it has been stated that the degree of bleeding and swelling of the brain she displayed would've taken at least around 35-40 minutes to develop after the head blow. And then the ligature is used to finish her off.

I read where one pathologist said that the sheer size of that fracture, would have caused extensive bleeding in the brain..so much so, that blood would've been running out of her nostrils. So, they felt the garroting came first, which would result in less bleeding in the brain, which is what they saw.

ok, that's another take - like every damn thing in this case, everything seems open to interpretation! I'd be interested if any kind of consensus could be reached on this issue, as it's obviously vitally important.

Poor Cyril. He was never invited to see the unredacted autopsy report, the tissue samples, photos and slides from the autopsy, but felt free to pontificate about a six year old and erotic asphyxiation, meaning it was supposedly done for her pleasure (!) and therefore happened before the head blow.

Doc thinks the world of him (they hail from the same city, I believe, and have exchanged e-mails), but I'm afraid he's out of his depth on this one.

Cc I know about petechial hem, and thus I have no doubt that she was technically alive when the garotte finished her off. But - is it possible that she was partially garrotted, banged over the head, then finished off with more garrotting?

Is this somehow supposed to prove that a former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, a forensic pathologist of national acclaim with 50 years of experience doesn't know how much bleeding a head blow that causes an 8-1/2 inch skull fracture will generate in a living victim? Interestingly, Wecht has a J.D. degree as well. What are your forensic pathology credentials?

That makes perfect sense to me as well. Her skull was practically split in half. Had she been alive, she would've bled out a helluva more. As I said, I am not a doctor, but that makes perfect sense to me.

What I am saying is I don't know exactly what happened because I wasn't there. However, that makes sense to me, just common sense. If you're dead or almost dead, there isn't going to be a lot of blood pumping into your brain, as your heart has stopped, no?

Burke said he got out of bed that night , ""yeah, I had some toy that I wanted to put together , I remember being down stairs after everyone was kind of in bed and wanted to get this thing out , "I just remember being down stairs" I remember this toy"Burke totally denied hitting her on the head with the train part . Burke told Dr Phil he did not hear anything unusual during the night , until all hell broke loose, I remember my mom bursting in my room frantic saying like ... oh my gosh running around my room looking for Jonbenet at that moment I was awake , she left and I could kind of hearing her freaking out ," he remembers a policeman coming in his room shinning a flashlight , remember her saying "where's my baby " where's my baby , I just laid there I didn't know what else to do"

When PR was being interviewed by LE, she never mentioned running into BR's room, but rather said that JR was the one who entered BR's room and she never did.

She also claimed she stepped over the note on the stair rung and read it standing over the note. Then she bounded up the steps leaving the note behind. Evidently she flew both down and up those stairs, because the note wasn't crinkled at all.

To add to that, Patsy (by her own account) woke up at 5:30, got dressed, did her makeup, did her hair, went downstairs, read the ransom note, ran back up stairs to check on JBR, realized she was missing and started freaking out, called for John to come down, waited for him to read it, digest it all etc, then made then finally made the decision to call 911 at 5:52am; all within a cool 22 minutes. Again, not likely in my opinion.

EG will do, you can drop the Jesus. And I have four kids (adults now) and no, I've never stair hopped. And yes, my house was three floors, and not spiral staircases either, which I am sure make it much harder to do.

MHN, here's my take on John Ramsey's thought process beginning in early 1996.

John: Man, I have so much money and so many women are throwing themselves at me but something's missing. I'm just not satisfied. Ah ha, I know what I need to do. I need to start being sexually active with 6 year old girls. The problem is, I don't know where I would find one without being caught. Oh yeah dummy, your own daughter. It is kind of strange that I am all of a sudden this sexual deviant despite no history of being abused.

John then proceeds to start sexually molesting his own 6 year old daughter. Convinces her all that time to keep it a secret (which is not uncommon).

Finally, JBR needs an exam. John realizes his cover will be blown. He thinks to himself "oh no, this is not good. I love JBR so much and I'm really not a violent person but I guess I'll just have to smash her head in to keep this on the down low. And what better time to do it than Christmas night. Then, I can write a three page ransom note. It won't be that difficult to figure out how to mimic Patsy's handwriting for 24 out of 26 letters on a note that long. The big question will be where I should dispose of the body. Oh yeah, I'll just leave it in the house.

Now if I can only get Patsy to buy in to every lie I come up with and act suspicious on her own to draw attention away from me. Also, hopefully LE will somehow find fibers from Patsy's sweater on the duck tape despite her never going near it. Fingers crossed she wears that same outfit tomorrow.

It's a complete myth that abusers are usually victims of previous abuse. The facts don't support that myth.

He was "all of a sudden" a sexual deviant? Do you know how long people with these urges can suppress them before acting? It can be many years.

What if she tried to shrug him off and told him she was going to tell Patsy that he was touching her? What if it had nothing to do with any pending examination? What if he was not only enraged and shamed by her rejection, but also had a split second to react before his daughter told his wife everything and literally destroyed his life?

24 out of 26 letters my ass! Most of the letters on that rn are deliberately formed in as generic a way as possible, and most people write most individual letters (especially vowels) in a very similar way. That's why this subjective pseudoscience is not allowed in many courtrooms.

Just leave the body in the house? Doc has an explanation for that. His whole theory hinges on it, in fact. The 911 call.

Cherry-picking your fibre evidence, good to see.

Overall 4/10. It was a little too earnest, lacked humour and substance, but thanks for playing.

Cherry picking evidence? LOL at that one. That takes the cake on this site. Basically code for "damn, I have no idea how to refute that so let me use a catch phrase. That was lazy a lazy response.

And since when did it become a myth for sexual abusers to typically have been abused themselves? Better let the rest of the world know, especially FBI profilers.

Is it possible that John was never sexually abused and in turn became a sexual deviant on his own? Sure, I guess but at the very least, it's equally possible that Burke was the sexual deviant as outlined in kolar's book. Let's not "cherry pick".

Better list 'em then, if you want to make your case, 'cause that article from Psychology Today was about children of narcissistic parents and the assignment of blame, only peripherally about child sexual abuse.

I insist on blending the two, Gummy. Take another look at those pageant photos - that 6 year old was tarted up to look about 22. Daddy had, and has, a thing for pageants and glam. With his narcissism and sense of entitlement, how could he be expected to resist?

New and Improved!

Currently available from the Kindle Store

Search This Blog

Things to Come

Things to Come

I just learned the other day of a new book on a case once labeled, "the crime of the century," but now almost completely forgotten. The title: Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? The author: James Kolar, a lead investigator during the reign of DA Mary Lacy, who famously exonerated John and Patsy Ramsey on the basis of a few miniscule fragments of so-called "intruder DNA." Thankfully, Kolar is not among those convinced by that very dubious "evidence." On the contrary, according to an excellent review,New Clues in JonBenet Ramsey Murder, recently published in the Daily Beast, Kolar's book presents strong evidence against the intruder theory -- implying, of course, that the murder was an inside job. I agree.

The publication of this new book, which I promptly ordered as soon as I found out about it, has prompted me, in spite of many misgivings, to once again plunge into the fray of this case, which for too many years, back in the late 90's and early 00's, as a regular poster on several Internet forums, occupied far too much of my attention and proved an endless source of frustration and annoyance, not only to me, but most of my fellow iSleuths. My problem was that I had solved it.